Artists influence each other. That’s the way it is. Nobody operates in a vacuum, but yes I agree Antonioni is hugely influential. We shouldn’t hold that against people like Denis and Bela Tarr, however, since they put their own personal touch on what they do. In my personal opinion, it’s essentially a toss up between Godard and Antonioni for title of most important filmmaker of the 20th century.
The filmmakers you list as those he influenced are all acclaimed art film directors with a strong following here, but not with the general public and limited even in the broader film community (That’s not to question any of their talents as artists). To be considered “most influential” wouldn’t Antonioni have to have had more of an effect on mainstream cinema?
I think arguing that Hou Hsiao-hsien (I’ve actually never heard him mention Antonioni, but I know Antonioni was a big influence on Edward Yang), Bela Tarr (again… never heard him mention Antonioni), Tsai, Reichhardt, Angelopoulos, and Denis all work in “virtually the same stylistic place” would be an absurdity. I would hope you would agree.
So, if these are the filmmakers that take influence from Antonioni it’s intensely obvious, with the diversity in how they go about exploring some moderately similar issues, that they have expanded upon Antonioni’s framework in multiple, vast directions.
As to the first part of your question:
I have absolutely no clue. I’d guess no, but it’s really an impossible question to answer because none of us truly know how much influence these filmmakers take from film, from life, from other art forms, or from any other possible source.
Wouldn’t Grace Chang have just as large a place in Tsai’s oeuvre as almost any other filmmaker?
Has film changed as much from 1961 to 2011 as it did from 1911 to 1961?
I really don’t think that’s the correct question to ask. In 1911 the camera wasn’t even a 20 year old invention. In 1961 an entire generation had grown up not knowing what life was like without cinema, and movie theatres. Of course things progress much, much faster when they’re brand new… at least in a technological sense.
I would argue that in terms of content the cinema has grown much more vastly in the previous 50 years than it did from 1911-1961.
Brad S
True, influential needs to be defined. I mean influential to mostly non-commerical / non-mainstream / non-Hollywood / non-Bollywood/ non Hong Kong, etc cinema in the world
Not that films from the mainstream need to be ignored but it seems to me that those ‘pushing’ cinema into new places [not technological places] seem to be following the precendent set forth by Antonioni. More so than – say – Fellini or Bergman or Kurosawa.
But, anyway if we consider film an art form it seems Antonioni helped point it in a direction it has stayed on for a while. Such as the cinema of alienation. Or the use of long slow takes. Etc.
I assume you mean non-Hong Kong in the action film sense?
It might even strengthen your argument to include the Hong Kong New Wave (Wong Kar-wai, Clara Law, Ann Hui, Stanley Kwan, etc)…
Not that films from the mainstream need to be ignored but it seems to me that those ‘pushing’ cinema into new places [not technological places] seem to be following the precendent set forth by Antonioni. More so than – say – Fellini or Bergman or Kurosawa.
What of Bresson? Ozu? Godard? Tarkovsky? I’d definitely be willing to argue that those four hold as much, if not more, sway than Antonioni even among some modern filmmakers that have been named hear (wasn’t 35 Shots of Rhum dedicated to Ozu?).
By narrowing the field, I think the claim has more validity, but I do wonder (and don’t claim to know) if its true that modern art films owe more to Antonioni than say Fellini or Bunuel. I may also be guilty of a little bias here since Antonioni never really resonated with me.
No. There is absolutely no way to quantify such a statement unless we have a fucking encyclopedia’s worth of director quotes saying as much.
I think Matt is referring to the detachment that characterizes much of modern art cinema. Such detachment owes itself in a great way to Antonioni, at least in my opinion. It’s the whole idea of a filmmaker examining the world from an Archimedean vantage point. He or she is on the outside looking in. It’s definitely the case with much of the work of Claire Denis in my opinion. I haven’t watched enough Bela Tarr to comment on it, but there are certainly filmmakers who aren’t Antonioniesque in the least, such as Breillat and Haneke. Fat Girl could have been a Chabrol film, and Certified Copy could have been a Rohmer film.
Je m’ennuie aujourd’hui
maybe I should watch L’AVVENTURA again
I can think of several filmmakers he’s clearly inluenced: Wim Wender, Chantal Ackerman, Wong Kar Wai. But in terms of the cinema as a whole I can’t see Atonioni influencing the way films are made. His work is too thoughtful, careful and above all measured for commercial purposes. He remains very very special.
Into Peripheral Vision
The reason I focus on Antonioni was because when the film played Cannes in 1960 is was not well received yet today it is generally considered a classic. So the 50 year time period seemed interesting to me.
The style and the precarious nature of L’Avventura were new to many viewers. It was one large step beyond Italian Neorealism, which at the time was very influential and a movement most critics and viewers could associate with. With Antonioni many critics and viewers were puzzled about how to react. It was too precarious to them, too slow also and didn’t have the narrative focus they were used to.
Yet since then many films similar to Antonioni’s films [the main four I mentioned] have been made and in time have been accepted by the critics. Over the past 50 years these type of films are much more accepted and common at the art house cinemas.
Clair Denis has noted often how much she loves Ozu. But having watched all of her films I can say her style is not like Ozu. It is much closer to Antonioni or maybe Bresson. Obviously she has her own style as well. But the influence is there.
I feel Tarkovsky took something from Antonioni. Godard’s ‘style’ is not as influential. His post-modern self-reflexive nature is though, true. Bresson is a contender for most influential, yes.
Antonioni’s too relentlessly idiosyncratic to be on any serious list of “Most Influential.”
David Ehrenstein
Well, I won’t disagree with you there.
I should note this topic came out of a conversation I and some others had with Robert Koehler [Variety critic]. He felt that many, many films on the festival circuit were channeling Antonioni [my word not his] more so than they were Bergman or Fellini, who in there day were hugely successful filmmakers [as you know]. Yet today they are not really influential anymore. I had to agree.
So I wanted to throw the question out for discussion.
Malik
I don’t think a filmmaker has to tell us they are influenced by a filmmaker to be influenced. We can usually see it in there work.
Could you give some specific examples Matt L ?
(I know Bob Koehler personally, BTW.)
I’m talking about a definitive quantifiable dataset so the discussion can have some merit. Unless Antonioni has a patent on his specific style that everyone who pulls from most put in their credits, you can’t just assume they were influenced by him or even know who he is.
Marty talks about Eclipse here.
The clip touches on several aspects of Antonioni’s style. Have that many peopel taken it up?
Don’t know why we’re attempting to glean insights on Antonioni’s arthouse influence from a writer for Variety. I mean, Variety’s adept at covering breaking mainstream H’wood news (in what film will McConaughey next toplessly frolic), but their intellectual reach is pretty limited.
The style and the precarious nature of L’Avventura were new to many viewers. It was one large step beyond Italian Neorealism, which at the time was very influential and a movement most critics and viewers could associate with. With Antonioni many critics and viewers were puzzled about how to react. It was too precarious to them, too slow also and didn’t have the narrative focus they were used to.
Switch Umberto D. for L’Avventura in that sentence and you could make the same case. Is De Sica more influential because of the acceptance of China’s early 5th and 6th generation filmmakers (who obviously loved Neorealism)?
Lots of films were disliked upon release and accepted decades later. And that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with how much influence it has had.
Stylistically I don’t think Denis matches Antonioni anymore, at all. A lot of shots in 35 Shots of Rhum were short, shaky hand held shots (more akin to the American independent films of someone like Rogozhin or Cassavetes), and this was expanded ten-fold in White Material (I can’t think of a single languorous tracking shot a la Antonioni in that one). And in terms of content she is pretty close to Ozu, or at least Bresson more so than Antonioni.
I know for a fact Hou Hsiao-hsien did not take notes from Antonioni when developing his distinct style. He has said it was much, much more based on the biography of Sheng Congwen. To quote him:
“Before making Fengkuei my ideas about cinema were very simple: narrative, to tell the story in the script. Later on I met some filmmakers who had returned to Taiwan from abroad. They had a lot of theories about cinema, which got me all confused. I was puzzled; the script was finished but I didn’t know how to give it form. After listening to me, my scriptwriter Zhu Tianwen showed me a book called Autobiography of Shen Congwen. After reading the book I discovered Shen’s point of view was somewhat like looking down from above. Like natural laws, it has no joy and no sorrow. That I found to be very close to me. It doesn’t matter if he’s describing a brutal military crackdown or various kinds of death; life for him is a river, which flows and flows but is without sorrow or joy. The result is a certain breadth of mind, or a certain perspective that is very moving. Because of this, it produces a generosity of viewpoint. I decided to adopt this angle. The problem was how to transplant it to film. I didn’t really have a solution but I discovered a simple device, and that was to constantly tell the cinematographer, ‘keep a distance, and be cooler.’ It allowed certain real situations to naturally unfold themselves. The camera just stayed at a distance and quietly watched over them.”
Like I said, Hou Hsiao-hsien has never said he takes much influence from any filmmaker. The way he talks about film certainly doesn’t sound like a disciple of Antonioni; even if the stylistic markings are there.
But having watched all of her films I can say her style is not like Ozu.
No one’s is. That is exactly what makes his constant mention more interesting, in my view, than just linking tracking shots and emotionally reserved characters to Antonioni because it goes more to the center of who they are as filmmakers.
Denis and Hou cite Ozu as a major influence. Tarr cites Fassbinder. Tsai I know loves Tati and Truffaut. They may all share some stylistic influence from Antonioni, but the people they cite as personal influences in their work is much, much more interesting when looking at their work than just saying it’s the “stylistic equivalent of…”
Influential to whom?
Antonioni is certainly very influential, but rather than picking just one director as ‘Most influential’ I’d place him in a group of new wave directors instrumental in shaping modern cinema.
Although L’aventura is certainly on the short list of ‘Biggest instant game changers’.
To start, should we at least define Antonioni’s style?
That would be a great start. I’m still sort of in the dark as to what separates Antonioni’s specific “style” from others around the same period that explored similar issues.
David Ehrenstein
I recall he was talking about Asian cinema of the kind we have seen from the better films out of Taiwan (Ming-liang) and China (Jia Zhangke). It was definitely with regards to contemporary world cinema.
He was talking in some ways about the alienation and ennui we see in many art house or festival films that he believed were a result of the influence of Antonioni.
Z. Bart
Your view on Variety critics is very general. Koehler’s views on world cinema is more impressive than most. Here is his blog [Film Journey]
Note his long review of Tarr’s Turin Horse.
Malik
Influences are not always direct. Most rock bands over the last 40 years are influenced by The Beatles and yet I would bet most of those bands would tell you they don’t much like The Beatles. The key is someone comes along in an art form and causes a ripple effect which is felt for years. The Antonioni style is evident even in filmmakers who don’t know his films. So an influence need not be literally acknowledged to be evident in an art form.
Well Antonioni didn’t invent alienation and ennui. You can find these elements in Bergman movies made precisely at the same time as Antonioni’s.
If you look at advertisements in the 1950’s they were heavy with text – full page of text with a small image — now?
Was there something happening in culture that would have led to Antonioni’s style?
Who influenced Antonioni’s style?
Jia Zhangke has stated his main influences are Hou and Bresson. Tsai has stated Truffaut, Fassbinder, and Tati.
Those seem much closer, in my mind, than Antonioni.
Influences are not always direct. Most rock bands over the last 40 years are influenced by The Beatles and yet I would bet most of those bands would tell you they don’t much like The Beatles.
I don’t think that’s true at all. The Beatles are still the dominant cultural influence in rock. I can’t think of a band that says they openly dislike The Beatles.
Antonioni was about a way of looking at the world. Never more so than here —
The key is someone comes along in an art form and causes a ripple effect which is felt for years. The Antonioni style is evident even in filmmakers who don’t know his films. So an influence need not be literally acknowledged to be evident in an art form.
But I don’t see how you couldn’t apply this theory to anyone.
If a filmmakers own words about who influences them is not as important as just ramming their films into a particular mold… I mean I don’t really see the point of that theory…
Well Antonioni didn’t invent alienation and ennui. You can find these elements in Bergman movies made precisely at the same time as Antonioni’s.
Yeah, that (alienation and ennui) is more of societal theme than a style.
Into Peripheral Vision
It’s not a theory. Everyone has influences. But some of those influences are not direct. Yet they cannot be denied. Take the deep focus cinematography of Gregg Toland. Its influence was enormous to the art of cinema. You don’t even need to know who Toland was but you know what deep focus is.
I’m not saying Antonioni is as influential as that. He may not even be influential except to a handful of filmmakers. I’m just posing the question.
Robert W Peabody III
Re: alienation and ennui
I would say the primary criticism of L’Avventura is that it is anti-dramatic. In such a way that the focal point of the film becomes the state-of-mind of the characters. And in turn the cinematic style mirrors that state-of-mind. So while it is true style is a societal theme the way it is portrayed on screen is not. I find Antonioni’s style to be influential to the way in which other filmmakers portray ennui or alienation. It’s an opinion to be sure. He wasn’t the first but he perfected it.
Matt L
Is Antonioni the most influential filmmaker of the past 50 years?
L’avventura opened 50 years ago in New York on April 4th 1961.
The NY Times [Bosley Crowther] wrote: "Watching “L’Avventura” is like trying to follow a showing of a picture at which several reels have got lost."
He didn’t get it. Many others were also perplexed.
Yet it changed cinema to some degree and became a seminal film, which is today considered an influential classic.
Filmmakers as diverse as Hsiao-hsien Hou, Bela Tarr, Ming-liang Tsai, Kelly Reichardt, Theo Angelopolous and Clair Denis [to name just a few] all share cinematic form and content traits with the films of Antonioni.
Fifty years prior to 1961 was 1911. Clearly cinema changed a lot from 1911 to 1961. But has it changed as much from 1961 to 2011? Do we have any filmmakers today who are trying to advance the cinema as much as Antonioni did with L’Avventura, La Notte, L’eclisse and Red Desert?
Are the best films made today merely treading in virtually the same stylistic place Antonioni set forth?